narutofanonfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Improving NFW
Preliminary discussions Just like what we're doing at Bleach Fan Fiction, let's discuss what should be done in order to improve this wiki. To start, this wiki is plagued with poor quality works due to its popularity with younger and less experienced writers. What would the rest of you suggest in order to minimalize this shortcoming? --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 17:55, October 28, 2010 (UTC) :I think that a few well written articles should be used as a model for the new users to read and see how to properly format their own articles. In this way they can start off on a good foot instead of the usual bad one.--[[User:Shiratori Cullen|''' 楽しい']] (talk to Fenix!) 18:10, October 28, 2010 (UTC) :I agree with Fenix 100%! Some articles like Ryu Uchiha or Reiko Himegami should be used to show good, detailed, and revised articles. '무극' (talk to Joker!) 20:24, October 28, 2010 (UTC) :: I can agree, but I offer a step one further, one similar to what we suggested on BFF; a Featured Article. This would demonstrate to all users what high quality articles look like. Unlike on BFF, NF has managed to successfully keep the FA process going for long periods of time, so it wouldn't take too long to get that up and running. I suggested it once, but I think it needs to be discussed in detail here; an abolishing of the godmodding policy should also improve the writing on this site. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 23:30, October 28, 2010 (UTC) :::I feel that the NF FAs really did not show much of a quality standard: I have absolutely no idea how the FAs on this wiki were selected. However, it was due to the dedication to the wiki that allowed the FAs to be constantly updated. --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 02:54, October 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::There have been a lot of different systems, I believe. I think that we could get better FAs, and update frequently, if we try. I suggest we use a vote between admins (simply because admins are more likely to be able to discern what constitutes an exemplary article).--'User:Thepantheon 03:07, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::: I feel that is fair enough. Admins should know what to expect as far as featured articles go. Votes are how it was done in the past on Naruto Fanon Wiki:Featured Article. We would need to update the qualifications, but I think it should work well enough. This wiki certainly has dedicated users, and with enough help, I'm sure that NF won't go down the drains again. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 03:26, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::: I think that requirements should include that the article have good spelling/grammar, and a proper infobox. In my opinion, proper formatting and grammar/spelling is something that this wiki needs that could be improved a lot simply by showing a good example, so we should take advantage of that with the FAs. --'User:Thepantheon 03:46, October 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Panth brought this to my attention; a few of the admins here (namely Kurosaki and ANBU) are inactive, and seem that they won't be returning. As such, they should be stripped of their B'crat status (Ask Uberfuzzy about doing it), but keep their admin rights. Now, here's the idea me and Panth discussed. How 'bout we have two B'crats (Kind of like Head Admin, but at the same time, not), while the others are just normal Admins. We have six B'crats who are active on NF right now, and that isn't really necessary. So, I think we should put it to a vote on which two Admins remain or become B'crats. My vote is Lavi (As he's the creator of NF) and Ten (As he is the driving force of this "rebirth" as I like to call it). Anyone oppose? '무극' (talk to Joker!) 00:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::You have no opposition from me. I actually brought this up awhile ago but no one really liked it. We have a ridiculous amount of admins/bcrats on this site. Limiting bcrats to 2 is an excellent idea, since they are the ones that need to approve new bcrats. If we have too many of them, then we have issues with people promoting users to bcrat without a real reason and that can be a problem. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 01:21, October 30, 2010 (UTC) I disagree, somewhat. Considering we've had several ''hacking issues in the past, with my account, and even Kou's, it wouldn't be wise to limit the Bureaucrats. Should, let's say, Lavi's account go under seige, and Ten's absent, the hacker will have free reign and no admin would be able to stop him. Bureaucrats can demote Admins, but not other Bureaucrats. We should have two more as back-ups, or even one at least. Also, this is gonna sound very arrogant of me, but if I'm not mistaken, Ten was ready to give up on this place until I persuaded him with my own decision to rejoin the workforce here (I may be wrong, but I'm HIV positive on this). >_> So thanks Kou, for not mentioning me at all. That's nice to know my actions go unnoticed. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity | Talk to Me :3) 01:32, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Sei, perhaps have a backup account with a different password that the bcrats can use in case of emergency? Also, the main resort in case of hacking would likely be calling in Wikia, no matter whether we had a bcrat or not. And I'd like to mention that as Kou isn't very active on BFF, especially with the "rebirth" here, he probably didn't notice your talking to Ten. I put my vote in for Lav and Ten. Sei, you'd be a third choice, but I think that just since Ten is doing a large amount of the renovation, as it were, it makes sense for him to have the spot. No offense to you. --'User:Thepantheon 01:39, October 30, 2010 (UTC) : Sei's right. He did convince me to give this place a second chance. Something I jumped on. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 01:39, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I should be chosen in lieu of Ten and Lavi; especially with my upcoming Taekwondo importance and stuff, and luckily, I can still help on NF and BFF. By all means, I firmly believe that if two should be chosen, it should be those two. The thing is, I believe giving credit where credit is due. Like I said, I know it's arrogant. I'm not perfect, and I can be selfish sometimes. I don't appreciate nobody even mentioning any of the effort I put into some of the renovations we attempt. Anyways, I'm sorry for the selfishness of the statement; it's just who I am. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity | Talk to Me :3) 01:52, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry, Sei. I haven't been very active on BFF since this week began, so I didn't know that you encouraged Ten to come back. Thank you. :D Now, as for a third "back-up", I'm split between Sei and Fenix. Yesh, Sei is a senior member and a very good one at that, but Fenix has been more active around NF. Well, that's my final thought on the matter. '무극' (talk to Joker!) 12:55, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Sharingan Issue Alright, I believe I should split the discussions from here now. I, honestly, don't care for the idea of multiple universes. That shouldn't be justification for millions of Uchiha, and Sharingan users, running around. NF is formally, and primarily, a '''fanon', meaning we need to adhere to canon. It was stated several times that Itachi and Madara killed off all of the Uchiha except for Sasuke. Now, I agree that there is holes in that; they could have been on missions, or weren't in the village, or were rogues at the time of the massacre. However, I don't believe that people should have millions of Sharingan running around here. Before, we limited each user to two Sharingan and/or Uchiha maximum, but that was a bust; some admins were manipulating the numbers for their own gain. Therefore, I set forth this proposal. We assign admins to categorize all current active Uchiha on this site, and delete all Uchiha and/or Sharingan-using pages that are no longer applicable. In the meantime, we close all Uchiha allowance until we finish this. From there, we can all vote on a concrete set of rules regarding this. I understand that not everybody here RP's, but we are first and foremost, an RP wikia. There needs to be some sort of rule. Now, my proposal will be different because it doesn't just apply to Uchiha, but all things that were stated in Naruto to be destroyed or rare. For example, Rinnegan was said to be very rare. We still aren't sure if there are two. Madara claims that Nagato's eye was his. For all we know, maybe that eye is Rokudou's eye. We don't know. So, in the meantime, I propose we ban all access to new Sharingans and Uchihas until all current ones are accounted for. From there, we (Administration) shall decide on a firm set of rules that will not be manipulated or changed. I hate to say it, but yes, we need an NF Constitution. --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity | Talk to Me :3) 17:46, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :I agree with you Sei, There needs to be a list of all Uchiha/Sharingan users here on NF and a constitution rather than the policies we currently have.--[[User:Shiratori Cullen|''' 楽しい']] (talk to Fenix!) 18:08, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :: I generally believe in following the canon, which would be a strict "no-Sharingan" policy. '''However', for users who need an Uchiha as part of their backstory, that lived and died before or during the massacre, that is fine. They should be able to create Uchiha as long as they're already dead (either pre or post Massacre) and cannot be used in a roleplay unless the roleplay takes place before the massacre. This is possible, for example, a majority of Lavi's stories take place before the massacre or before the canon events. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 18:41, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree that we should limit Uchiha based on canon precedent. However, I do agree with Ten that anything done before the massacre is fine. I say that, as Sei said, we lock down Uchiha/Sharingan allowance while we count up Sharingan/Uchiha, and set a limit. Also, I propose that we make all Uchiha/Sharingan users tag their articles in an appropriate category. As to Rinnegan, as it seems to be an eye that heavily influences events, it does make sense that some users would have one to play an important part in their story. However, I think that it should be definitely limited to one per user, and perhaps admin permission, or a simple policy of maybe no Rinnegan RP usage outside of the story in which it was created to play an important role in? I realize that last one might be a bit iffy, but the other two are very plausible, in my opinion, and I'm just putting stuff on the table. --'User:Thepantheon 18:48, October 30, 2010 (UTC) :::: One last thing I want to point out, Sei. I realize that the idea of ''everyone having their own universe is a bit of a headache, but I think we all know what happens when you try to put everyone into a site wide continuality. Everyone should have the right to create their own fanons without having to worry about intruding on others or feeling like they can't express themselves without having to constantly rely on admin permissions and a bunch of regulations. Make a general list of rules and leave "admin consent" out of it. Number one, its too much work for the admins to do; their job is to maintain the site and make sure that things are properly categorized, grammar is correct, and problem users are blocked. Number two, its a pain in the butt for users to have to ask admins and then wait several days for a proper responce when they want to get their stories underway. I, in no way, support an "admin consent" system. If we vote to implement one, I say that all admins have to answer to the two bcrats that are in charge and have to ask them for permission. That way admins can't just galavand everywhere saying who can and can't create something while they create whatever they want. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 19:02, October 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::As soon as you mentioned that, Ten, I realized I'd completely forgotten that loophole. Yes, normal users would have to get permission from admins, and admins would have to get permission from a bcrat, and the bcrat would have to get permission from the other bcrat, I suppose, or else maybe two or three normal admins? We can't have admins giving themselves permission, of course. --'''User:Thepantheon 19:07, October 30, 2010 (UTC)